Taking Care of Maya - FL CPS/Munchausen case

[Sam the Centipede]

Injury that is tightly compressed is a common element in people who get CRPS after an injury or surgery such as mine. […] They don't do that any more.

That's interesting to read and useful to know if one or one's relative/friend/etc. has a fracture set in plaster.

Off Topic

Psychologist Oliver Sacks wrote an overlong* book about breaking his leg on a mountainside above a fjørd** in Norway while hiking alone and his experiences getting down the mountain and later in hospital and recovering.

He describes two interesting aspects of treatment in the early 1980s (to remind older readers, including me, that was 40 years ago). One was how he was talked down to doctors while they knew he was a medically qualified doctor himself. Their attitude was "you're a patient, we treat you as a patient, and this is how we treat all patients, you must accept your role as patient." No appropriate level of communication.

The second – more relevant here – was the physical treatment, lots of immobilization, little or no physiotherapy, which left Sacks feeling "legless". So that's another aspect of fracture management that has moved on over the decades of our lifetimes.
_________
* The book (A Let To Stand On) is overlong by about 3× as-is. Sacks acknowledges his first draft was 3× longer before his editor took a sword to it. Wow, he likes words!
* Yes, the word is fjord in all Scandinavia. But Sacks presumably fjørd to look more Norwegian. This is very disconcerting when one automatically reads it phonetically so misspelt it rhymes with "turd" rather than "bored".

[RVInit]

The hospital confirmed they will appeal and I believe it will be based on the judge cutting off their defense regarding Beata's medical child abuse investigation. He had allowed the plaintiff to drone on and on and one throughout their case about the "false accusations of child abuse" against Beata. I think their appeal may also include some other rulings by the judge, including all the extra time he kept giving to the plaintiff. In all they were given 13 extra hours of testimony beyond their 50 hour limit. The defense only used just under 40 hours, in part due to their defense being ripped out from under them partway through the trial. They may have used up their 50 hours had they been allowed to actually put on a defense.

Because of the ruling by the judge, Dr Sally Smith's testimony was drastically cut short as she was not allowed to give any testimony regarding her investigation, only very briefly allude to it.

Towards the end of their case they brought in the person who is the highest level over all of the regional CPT Medical Directors to testify that Dr Sally Smith had carried out her investigation as a CTP medical 100% by the book. He basically investigated her investigation. I was left wondering if his testimony was in part to cut down on the effect of the plaintiff vilifying Dr Smith during every step of their case, and possibly in part for the benefit of their appeal. They had Dr Sally Smith proffer testimony about her medical child abuse investigation and her opinion that Beata K had in fact engaged in medical child abuse and that her investigation has turned up a substantial amount of evidence to back up her opinion.

Will be interesting to see how the appeal turns out.

[Reddog]

Injury that is tightly compressed is a common element in people who get CRPS after an injury or surgery such as mine. […] They don't do that any more.

That's interesting to read and useful to know if one or one's relative/friend/etc. has a fracture set in plaster.

I don’t know how often CRPS would occur.
I had a compound fracture of r. Tibia 53 years ago. Full leg plaster cast for 6 weeks, then half cast from knee down for another 4 months or so, 6 months in plaster cast. Fiberglass casts didn’t exist back then.
I didn’t get CRPS, but funny how nerves work. To this day if I rub the scar where the bone came out in the middle of the calf, it itches down by my ankle. Weird feeling.
Leg set crooked, the doctor at AFEES rejected me for that, and also high frequency hearing loss. He suggested a tibial osteotomy to correct the curvature. I had that done but didn’t get a cast, they used a knee splint with D-rings, so I could loosen it at night.

[sugar magnolia]

Completely shattered my right wrist almost 50 years ago (the doc said the bone fragments looked like cornmeal on the x-ray) and spent almost 8 months in a plaster cast. 8 weeks all the way up to my collarbone to immobilize everything from my shoulder down, another 10 weeks from the bicep down, then about 3 more months from the elbow down. I mastered writing left handed though.

[RVInit]

Completely shattered my right wrist almost 50 years ago (the doc said the bone fragments looked like cornmeal on the x-ray) and spent almost 8 months in a plaster cast. 8 weeks all the way up to my collarbone to immobilize everything from my shoulder down, another 10 weeks from the bicep down, then about 3 more months from the elbow down. I mastered writing left handed though.

At least you can say you definitely know how to make lemonade from lemons! That must have been quite the experience. But bravo on the effort to write left handed.

[RVInit]

Some interesting tidbits I learned about Dr Chopra, who the plaintiff brought in as an supposedly outside CRPS expert to confirm Maya's CRPS diagnosis.

He wasn't exactly chosen for his expertise in CRPS. His actual specialty is EDS. He is associated with an organization that specializes in treatment of EDS. Some EDS patients also have CRPS, but I don't get the impression that it is a very large population of them.

He apparently lied about where he got his medical degree, he claimed it was from Harvard. He actually got his degree from a medical school in India. I don't see why anyone would lie about such a thing, when it was easily discovered, but the defense was slapped down with a sustained objection when they asked him "You didn't really get your medical degree from Harvard, did you"? But apparently it was confirmed that he did a residency and fellowship at Harvard Medical School, but not his MD.

Beata chose him as an "outside expert" during the dependency case because he wrote a paper on his opinion that MBP doesn't really exist and that parents of kids with pain syndromes are often accused of MBP. I don't believe that is true. It's actually rare for MBP to fake some type of pain condition. They typically fake rare conditions, or put feces in their food or IV to create infections. Beata faked four other conditions aside from CRPS, and according to the podcast there are even more that were uncovered that I don't yet know about.

It just so happened that the steroids that she was giving Maya for fake asthma caused muscle weakness and all over muscle pain. And because Beata refused to stop giving Maya the steroids, the pain and muscle weakness got bad enough to put her into a wheelchair. And then she was able to use those symptoms to get Maya a diagnosis for another rare condition, CRPS. That was a piece of brilliant work by Beata, using the side effects of excessive use of steroids to create pain and weakness and turn that into a CRPS diagnosis.

[RTH10260]

[RVInit]

This is a typical misrepresentation. The hospital "decided" nothing. They have a duty to report. CPS, DCF, and law enforcement investigate. And a judge makes the decision. The hospital had no choice once a judge put her into state custody. The hospital updated the judge multiple times that Maya did not need to be in the hospital, but it's the legal system that works far more slowly. Everyone talks about it as if it was the hospital making a decision and the judge going along with it. And of course, that is how the plaintiff argued it to the jury. But the evidence was clear on who made what decision on what day. And the jury decided to ignore the the evidence, in my opinion.

Part of the problem is that the judge allowed only some of the facts to be brought in that may have tipped the jury off about medical child abuse, but wouldn't allow the defense to present it as such or argue in closing as such.

Some of those facts included the mother lying about asthma dx, lying about immune deficiency dx and seeking treatment, testimony about steroid abuse causing all over muscle pain and muscle weakness, malnutrition (they were prohibited from using the term "failure to thrive"). So, there were facts that the jury could have discussed and put two and two together. But since all these facts related to medical child abuse were just scattered willy nilly throughout the trial with different witnesses and the defense was not allowed to tie those facts together in their closing argument in a way that suggested that Beata was causing harming to Maya, I think those facts just got lost on the jury.

This was because of a motion brought by the plaintiff right before the trial, and the judge sided with the plaintiff on that. it really tied the hands of the defense. And all these legal experts opining on YouTube just spew the same opinion as most of their subscribers already have. Few of them watched the case closely enough to point out all the evidence of suspicious activity by Beata and her falsification of multiple diagnoses. They all have full time jobs. I don't know about this guy, but he's just spewing stuff straight out of Netflix, which is plaintiff propaganda.

Edit: I do think it's helpful for people to see this video though, because it really brings home the problem of all the misinformation out there about that case. This one is very typical, so it's very useful in that regard. And fairly short.

[RVInit]

Podcast Nobody Should Believe Me: Season 3: Verdict Part 2 has been out for a day or two now.

Show host Andrea Dunlop features guest lawyer and trial consultant Jonathan Leach. They discuss how the judge disallowing the defense to put on any of the medical child abuse left the jury with pretty much no choice but to find for the plaintiff. He talked about how inflaming the plaintiff opening statement was and the defense was just not allowed to give the jury any compelling reason to understand that Beata allowing Maya to get absurd amounts of ketamine was just the tip of the iceberg.

It's my opinion that the jury would have understood the abuse regarding asthma, immune deficiency and other ailments since they could more easily understand those and the plaintiff couldn't have bullshitted their way through a condition with which the jury is actually familiar. They could easily have seen the danger Beata presented to Maya if that evidence came through.

They also discuss the likely outcome of this case being that hospitals will likely just attempt to offload patients with this kind of presentation, more kids will end up dying of child abuse because doctors simply will not be willing to be dragged through the mud. I would be willing to bet Sally Smith has probably received a threat or two. It wouldn't surprise me at all. The Netflix propaganda piece vilified her and people on social media were ready to break out the pitchforks and come after her. Thank goodness there isn't an Ammon Bundy type to recruit people to do the same to JHACH as was done to St Luke's.

I have to make one correction. When I listened to an earlier podcast I thought I had understood that the podcast host had actually seen the 45 page report on medical child abuse. That is not correct. She has had an anonymous doctor who was involved in the dependency hearing who has read the entire report. She did not give all of the details, but verified some of the information that used to be out in the public via Beata's blog and then said there is much more than that in the actual report. But she has never shared the report and probably doesn't have a copy of it herself, but was privy to it because of the court hearings.

Here is a link to the podcast on Apple.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/n ... 1615637188

[RVInit]

The defense in this case has filed a motion, they are asking for an interview with our famous Juror #1, who was basically advocating for the plaintiff in his questions. Apparently they found out that his wife was blogging and commenting profusely throughout the trial, on the side of the plaintiff. Not only did she do this during the day when her husband was sitting on the jury, but she was actively engaging in pro-plaintiff blogging and commentary at night when her husband would have been at home. They referred to her as a "social media influencer", not sure if they are stretching the meaning of that word, or if she really is what is considered an "influencer". But she also apparently physically came to court to watch the trial while her husband was sitting on the jury. The wife even commented on her own husband's questions, referring to him as the LEO juror (he was a former law enforcement officer), but not revealing that she was married to him.

If the same judge is going to consider this motion, it will go nowhere. He had all of the questions this juror asked, where he clearly treated plaintiff and defense witnesses differently right from the start of the trial. He should have removed this juror, there were six alternates that could have taken his place and that would have taken this issue off the table. That juror clearly was a problem, as many who watched the trial were commenting on his obvious bias. But the judge got angry with the defense motion to remove him from the jury.

I believe the judge was also biased himself. During one of the motions for directed verdict where he had to find for the defense he opined that "if ever there was a case that should change the law it would be this one" - that was regarding the fact that Mr K did not suffer a certain type of loss (I apologize, I can't remember the details of it, but it was a legal technicality) so the judge had to give verdict to the defense on a particular count. Also, not allowing the defense to actually HAVE a defense, well, that speaks volumes. Especially when he was allowing the plaintiff to constantly anger the general public and the jury by constantly bringing up during the trial that some of the doctors "accused" Beata of MBP, but then not allowing the hospital to show there was ample evidence of MBP. Any reasonable person seeing that evidence would understand why the hospital was concerned and likely would have changed the entire outcome of the trial, except for perhaps the counts involving Bedy. She was so demonized if the jury had seen video showing she was the one telling the truth they may have not believed their own eyes.

Edit: Holy shit. I hadn't listened to the whole thing when I first posted this. I remember the discussion about juror #1. The wife was in the courtroom during the discussion of the motion to dismiss her husband from the jury. After Mr K told his attorney he wanted to keep Juror #1, he (Mr K) turned to the juror's wife and did a thumbs up.

I think I had also mentioned that Maya was constantly looking at Juror #1 and smiling at him. I was not at all surprised that he turned out to be the jury foreman, he was asserting himself pretty forcefully during questions. Maya constantly trading looks with him really bothered me. Now that I know the K family knew which person in the courtroom was his wife, combined with Maya constantly looking at him, that bothers me even more.

[sugar magnolia]

Not Maya, but another case of MBP by Wendi Scott was on some show last night. I never realized (or just never thought about) the fact that parents can suffer from Munchhausen and make themselves sick before they ever even have kids. No idea if this applied to Beata or not but it was interesting. Also, Wendi Scott journaled her daughter's illnesses. I wonder if that's a common thing to keep the attention coming, or just coincidence.

For transparency, I journaled my cancer for over a year but not for attention or sympathy, so I'm not implying that was their motive. I just found it interesting they both did it.

[RVInit]

Not Maya, but another case of MBP by Wendi Scott was on some show last night. I never realized (or just never thought about) the fact that parents can suffer from Munchhausen and make themselves sick before they ever even have kids. No idea if this applied to Beata or not but it was interesting. Also, Wendi Scott journaled her daughter's illnesses. I wonder if that's a common thing to keep the attention coming, or just coincidence.

For transparency, I journaled my cancer for over a year but not for attention or sympathy, so I'm not implying that was their motive. I just found it interesting they both did it.

That is interesting. The podcast that I have mentioned details a couple of cases of MBP where the perpetrator also had Munchausen as a teen or adult. It does make one wonder how often it happens . It does make sense though, given they are motivated by a compulsive need for sympathy.

[RVInit]

Off Topic

I guess maybe not entirely off topic, but this is really interesting. Gypsy Rose Blanchard was a victim of MBP who ultimately was involved in the murder of her mother, who victimized her horribly. The prosecutor declined to charge her with 1st degree murder and asked the court for a relatively light sentence. She will be released at the end of December this year.

This is a relatively short video that gives a decent introduction to her case. Her mother succeeded in getting various unnecessary surgeries, including back surgery and having her salivary glands removed, which cost Gypsy Rose her teeth at a young age. One of the photos of the two of them is striking. When you look at the photo it appears that the child is an old lady. The first time I saw the photo it was confusing because I thought the mother was Gypsy and Gypsy the mother. That photo is shown in this video.

[AndyinPA]

I'm familiar with that case. I was also somewhat sympathetic to the young man who actually committed the murder on her behalf. I'm not sure if he's ever going to see the outside of a prison cell. He got a very long sentence.

[pipistrelle]

Will have to watch later.

Complicit in these cases are the doctors who authorize care/perform procedures without due diligence. I don't care that Maya's mother was a nurse. She wasn't qualified to diagnose, and as a family member she wouldn't be objective (not unlike not using your brother-in-law as your attorney). It sounds like she told doctors what to think, and shopped until she found some who agreed. That's wrong on the doctor's part.

On the flip side are children (and adults) who have rare, puzzling conditions that only a few doctors are qualified to diagnose. Finding those doctors is hard because unless the doctor you're going to has expansive knowledge, they may not know what to look for or who to refer to. WaPo has had several stories about people who suffered until someone had an epiphany and figured out they had a rare condition. Correct diagnosis is the hard part in many cases.

[RVInit]

I'm familiar with that case. I was also somewhat sympathetic to the young man who actually committed the murder on her behalf. I'm not sure if he's ever going to see the outside of a prison cell. He got a very long sentence.

He got life without the possibility of parole, so he will die in prison.

[AndyinPA]

I'm familiar with that case. I was also somewhat sympathetic to the young man who actually committed the murder on her behalf. I'm not sure if he's ever going to see the outside of a prison cell. He got a very long sentence.

He got life without the possibility of parole, so he will die in prison.

I thought that might have been it.

[RVInit]

Oh boy. A hearing took place regarding juror number one. It was really hard to discern ahead of time what this was likely to be like because all the online yip yap is being done by lawyers who, right from the start, were on the plaintiff side, and all they do is poo poo every single thing the defense does and says. And then when I see it for myself in the courtroom I can see that their opinions are highly biased and don't comport with what I actually see in the courtroom.

I have only just begun listening to a recording of this morning's hearing, and already I see that I believe the defense has more legitimate issues with juror number one than what has been represented by numerous lawyers online. So, once again, this case just absolutely reeks with a level of bias I have not witnessed in any other case I have watched. You always see a little bit of bias in some individuals here and there, that is normal. But this case is just insane.

So, here is what I have heard so far.

Ethan Shapiro has presented three sets of issues with juror number one, two of which have to do with what sound like very relevant omissions on his juror questionnaire.

One question had to do with ever being involved in any criminal investigation regardless of which side. He indicated he had not. However, the defense found that he and his wife had made allegations that his step son had attempted to murder them. There was an investigation, they made numerous statements and wanted him to be charged.

Another question on the jury questions had to do with had they ever been involved in any allegation of child abuse. The juror indicated no. However, it was found that he had been accused of child abuse by his former wife and their child and served with an injunction/restraining order whre he was nto allowed to get anywhere near the child. The judge interrupted and said "you mean 20 years ago?" As if the fact that it happened 20 years ago would have made a difference. Of course the defense would have used one of their preemptory strikes to remove him from the jury no matter how long ago. Particularly because he was on the receiving end of child abuse allegations and Beata had been suspected of child abuse.

The third issue was one that all the YouTube lawyers are rolling their eyes about. Of course, I only heard their opinions so I had no idea that this really does have at least some basis to question, in my opinion. It has to do with the juror using "Nazi style "S" letters (only in Sally Smith's name) the day that Sally Smith testified. In all his questions, of which had had many every single day, he had written the letter "s" with normal "curves", the way most people write the letter "S". However, the night before Sally Smith testified, the plaintiff lawyer gave one of his typical press conferences that he gave pretty much every day after the trial. He referred to the fact that Sally Smith was going to testify the following day and that she had conducted "Nuremberg tribunals" against Beata. The next day when juror number one wrote his questions, he used Sally Smith's name and he wrote the S" with the sharp angles that you often see in "Nazi" style lettering. He had never done that before, and all the other s' in the same sentence looked normal with curvy "s" letters, only Sally Smith's name was written with lettering that looked like "Nazi" lettering. Of course, his wife was referring to Sally Smith as a "Nazi" in her daily online rantings against the defense on that same day.

There is much more. but I have to finish listening. Also, looking for a better feed, this one had a few times it "timed out" and some of Shapiro's arguments got lost. I want to see if I can find a good feed that has everything he was saying.

I don't expect this to go anywhere with this particular judge. I think he is biased enough for a reasonable person to see, but I think he also is smart enough to stay on this side of the law as far as anything coming of it. Although taking away the defense's actual defense (massive evidence of MBP) while allowing the plaintiff to rant on and on and on about the hospital and other doctors accusing poor Beata of MBP. The plaintiff was allowed to make a huge issue of MBP and the defense hands were totally tied and they were forbidden to put any evidence on in any way to suggest why they suspected MBP was an issue here. According to the judge giving the jury an instruction that "the defense has immunity for making a call to the hotline" was enough.

More later.

[RVInit]

This judge made a shit show of this trial. So, part of today's argument were about retrial or remittitur (?) to change the damages awarded by the jury.

I remember during the trial the defense brought up that the plaintiff was creating an issue because they are presenting amounts for damages that go so far beyond what is normally allowed to be awarded by a jury for the actual charges. The judge told the defense they are basically "taking chances", but he still allowed it anyway.

So, now they are talking about whether there could be a retrial or remittitur for the charges where damages awarded by the jury are grossly over the highest amount ever awarded in Florida for the same charge.

So, the defense is asking for retrial under multiple scenarios, not just the issues with juror #1.

I'm curious as to what others might think about the "Nazi" thing. I found it interesting. By itself I don't think much of it, but putting all the behavior together of this particular juror and the coincidence between the plaintiff attorney accusing Sally Smith of conducting a Nuremberg inquisition (I realize that those were not conducted BY Nazi criminals, but AGAINST suspected Nazi criminals, but I think we all get the idea. It did seem awfully coincidental that he used what lots of people would recognize as a shape of the letter S that many would associate with that time period the very next morning after the plaintiff attorney also associated that same witness with that time period. That seems more than just coincidental. I don't think it's the most convincing argument for showing issues with this juror, but I do think it adds some nuance to some of what he may have been thinking. And also, seems just way too coincidentally timed.

[RVInit]

The judge made a decision about juror interview, and just as I expected, it will be limited, conducted by the judge and he's just going to ask him things like "did you talk about the case with anyone" and "did you do any research during the trial". That's it. He is not going to allow the lawyers to ask him any questions.

The fact that the guy was accused of child abuse himself and he was forbidden from having contact with his own kid and he did not disclose that fact seems to be perfectly OK with the judge because it was "20 years ago". So what if the juror thought HE was the victim and now he thinks Beata is also a victim because both of them were accused of some form of child abuse. No problem at all!!

What a joke. I am not at all surprised though. This judge put his fingers all over this case, but I'm guessing not enough to make a difference. He seems smart enough to know just how far he can go. I thought it was telling when he made statements about how much he disagreed with one of the laws that forced him to give a directed verdict in favor of the defense.

The worst part is that he himself is actually familiar with all the evidence that he did not allow the jury to hear and knows damn well that some of it would have made a huge difference. For instance I wonder how the jury would have been able to find for the plaintiff if they knew that Mr K admitted to having reserached MBP independently and came to a conclusion that Beata had this issue and also admitted that Maya never complained of pain or acted sick until Beata would come home at night, He thought Maya was doing this for attention from her mother because her mother was a workaholic who didn't have time for the kids. He thought Maya was smart enough to figure out that acting sick would be the one thing her nurse mother would not be able to resist and she would get attention from that. He moved her out of his bedroom and was making arrangement for Beata to move out of the house so Maya would be able to come home and Beata would no longer be in charge of Maya's health care.

I am stunned that he was even allowed to bring a lawsuit given all the statements he made on the record prior to Beata committing suicide. I can't believe a judge wouldn't just say no, you can't have a clear opinion that your wife was a danger to your child and then rub your hands together after she commits suicide (while a criminal investigation of her is ongoing) and say totally different things to a jury so you can get hundreds of millions of dollars. And then those same statements are not allowed to be brought into the trial. What a fucking farce. People like Jack Kowolski are why we can't have nice things.

[RVInit]

Here is a link to the podcast Nobody Should Believe Me. There are two episodes where Ethan Shapiro is interviewed and I highly recommend listening to these two episodes at least.

Those are episodes dated Dec14 called "What Now" and Dec 21 titled "Media Circus".

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/n ... 1615637188

You can find this podcast on any of your podcast apps also.

[RVInit]

I found the link to the full version of Beata's Wordpress blog and her emails. She wrote the blog as if it was Maya writing it. It's full of praise for "mommy" who doesn't give up on me, etc. When you read the blog keep in mind that testimony showed that Beata's description of what kind of treatment Maya received at the hospital was at odds with what she really received according to testimony from doctors at those various hospitals. For instance, her asthma was never confirmed. She succeeded in getting a doctor to prescribe large amounts of steroids, but when she would show up at the hospital with supposed asthma attacks she would have the lame little "cough" that you see in the first few minutes of the Netflix "documentary". That cough was described in testimony as a "habit cough" that comes from the throat rather than a cough that comes from the lungs. It sounds like a person is attempting to cough on purpose. Lay people refer to it as fake coughing. If you've seen the Netflix show you know what I mean. I am actually surprised they left that scene in that show because it is so obvious that sound she is making is not from any actual medical problem, such as asthma.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[RVInit]

I forgot to post this tidbit the other day. It turns out that Matthew Perry's death was caused, in part, by ketamine. He was self administering ketamine at home. The doctor that gave Maya ketamine treatments for nine months also wrote prescriptions for ketamine that Beata could administer to Maya at home, in between all the infusions.

Maya is really lucky to be alive. The very first ketamine infusion she received caused her oxygen saturation to go all the way down to 70. She almost had to be intubated. And of course, she was getting these incredibly high amounts of ketamine infusions in a non-ICU type setting. No legitimate ketamine clinic I have ever seen gives anywhere near the doses she was receiving. And they ALL administer ketamine in ICU type settings so life saving equipment is available in case anything goes wrong. I think Dr Kirkpatrick's clinic may have that kind of set up, but the quack who treated her with huge doses approximately 60 times in nine months had NO life saving equipment, she just laid on a massage table with an IV stand on the side.

[RVInit]

Here is a link to the latest episode of the Nobody Should Believe Me podcast. For anyone who saw the Netflix propaganda piece the end of this episode is particularly interesting. At the end of the Netflix BS piece there were four stories of other people who were supposedly "falsely accused by Dr Smith" of abuse. Andrea Dunlop has filed FIA to get more details of each of these cases, but, in the meantime she used fully publicly available resources to get information about each of these cases. Not a single one of them were falsely accused. First, the medical doctor doesn't accuse anyone. The medical doctor gives a medical opinion whether the child injuries or circumstances represent abuse, may or may not be the result of abuse, or were likely not a result of abuse. That's it. In the event that she finds abuse or likely abuse it's OTHER investigators that try to make a determination of WHO is responsible for the abuse. Not Dr Smith. Or any other doctor for that matter. Investigators certainly use the information from doctors as to who told what story to the doctors when they bring the child to the hospital, but it's still up to law enforcement to investigate and determine who, if anyone, should be charged or who is a suspect, if anyone.

The story of the man who spent a year in jail and then was released is especially horrific. He showed up at the courthouse the day Dr Smith testified in the Kolowski case, and law enforcement had to keep him away from Dr Smith. He blames her personally for the fact that he ended up in jail even though she was not involved in any part of any investigation as to WHO was responsible for his child's death. The child died from severe brain injuries. Autopsy and other medical evidence showed the child had suffered brain injuries in the past which were partly healed, but the injuries that caused the death of the child were not a one time thing. Eventually, partly because a witness provided fucked up story, they had to drop charges against this guy because they determined that a jury could probably be convinced that other people may have had access to the child during the time period of the fatal injuries. So, he was not released because of false accusations. He was released because prosecutors eventually had to make a decision whether they could get a conviction or not. This man also has a history of other types of domestic abuse. And in the podcast you can hear how he was screaming at Dr Smith as she was entering the courthouse to testify. She needs to have a body guard, this guy is clearly dangerous. And the Netflix propaganda piece makes him look like a poor guy who was victimized, not by law enforcement, who identified him as the most likely suspect, but by Dr Smith, who was villainized mercilessly in ridiculous excuse for a documentary.

Dunlop also gives details about the other people from that crazy BS piece who were characterized as having been falsely accused of child abuse. Not a single one of which sounds anything even close to false accusation of child abuse. And that is using information that is publicly available, which means whoever put that "documentary" together certainly had access to truthful information about each of those cases.

Here is a link to the page you can listen to this episode. It's really interesting.

https://www.nobodyshouldbelieveme.com/b ... le-part-2/

[RVInit]

Part Three of the season finale has dropped on the Nobody Should Believe Me podcast. Ms Dunlop reveals that now SHE is being harassed by Maya supporters, and accused of fearmongering about a non-existent thing called Munchausen by proxy.

Dr Smith talks about her thoughts and feelings regarding the idea of being held personally liable for doing her job. Her job was to collect medical information and to be ONE of dozens of people to give a judge information so the judge could make a determination about what would be in the best interest of the child. The plaintiff and their lawyers in this case went on a years long media blitz, culminating in a hit piece that airs on Netflix that paints Dr Smith as being the sole person making decisions that caused Beata to kill herself. The real truth is that Jack Kowolski told investigators that he independently researched Munchausen by the proxy, believed this was going on with Beata and he was making arrangements to move Beata out of the house so Maya could come home. Also, the family hired a shit ton of lawyers, who were all filing motions in the dependency case and this is what dragged everything on for so long and caused Maya to be sheltered at the hospital for a long time. Of course the Netflix hit piece never mentioned any of this or any of the huge amount of evidence that showed the Kowolski family story as presented to Netflix to be a huge pile of false. Not to mention the four people "falsely accused" which were not falsely accused. For various reasons, like one of the women whose boyfriend was accused of abusing her child, she was accused of accessory after the fact for helping to concoct a story to cover it up. The boyfriend was found guilty by a jury and charges were dropped against her since she had not participated in the actual abuse. And the man in the story very likely just got lucky that a witness threw a wrench in the time frame that various people may have been at the house and prosecutors had to make a hard decision to drop charges against him, since they felt that a jury could conclusde that others had access to the child. That child was 15 months old, not yet ambulatory, brought to the hospital with broken ribs, serious head and brain injuries and other serious body injuries. It was reported to the hotline and by the time Dr Smith showed up at the hospital to start her medical assessment the child had passed away from the injuries. So, the police investigation didn't even include any report by Dr Smith, because a coroner had done an autopsy, which revealed the ribs had previously been broken and the brain showed injuries in various states of healing. The coroner determined the child's injuries were a result of abuse and the manner of death was homicide. So, the whole police investigation was based on a coroner's report, not on Dr Smith report. But the Netflix hit piece still allowed this story to be shown on their special as if it was an example of a "false allegation by Dr Sally Smith".

I have stated this before, but it is horrifying to me that any judge even allowed any of these cases by the Kowolski family to move forward, given the sworn statements by Mr K and actual facts of the case.

here is a link to the most recent installment in season three of the podcast. It's very interesting, as are all of the installments that feature Dr Smith. She has been a real hero to so many children that were saved from abusive situations. Also some interesting facts come out in these three installemnts, which is that when you include a person with Dr Smith's credentials as a board certified child abuse expert, they actual are LESS likely to determine that a situation is because of abuse. This podcast doesn't go into it, but during the trial there was paperwork that showed one case where Dr Smith found NO evidence of intentional child abuse in a case that was reported to the hotline. In that case, the parents had harmed the child by incorrect administration of medications, but Dr Smith was very thorough and determined that the parent's lack of understanding of English, and the hospital's lack of providing an interpreter had been the reason that the parents did not understand how much medication and how often they were supposed to administer. She saw no history of anything that indicated the parents would have deliberately given the child too much of a medication. And they had immediately brought the child in and were honest about how much medication they had given the child. But of course because the defense was not allowed to ask Dr Smith about anything having to do with child abuse, they were not allowed to ask her to give any statistics about how often a hotline report ended up with her making a determination of actual intentional abuse. The actual statistics are about 50% of the cases are found by child abuse expert such as Dr Smith. And that number is higher for people who don't have the board certification that Dr Smith has. That would have been very instructive to the jury to see that it's actually less likely for someone with Dr Smith's credentials to find actual abuse. But still, I knew about this because of paperwork that this jury had available to them. But that jury was just fixated on the Kowokski story and I don't believe they bothered to even discuss any of the myriad of issues I saw in the testimony and reported in this topic.

https://www.nobodyshouldbelieveme.com/d ... le-part-3/